Liberal writers as a group have no idea what they are writing about when it comes to economics or numbers. A report this week at The New York Times provides another example of this.
The New York Times posted an article on Wednesday, September 6, by David Leonhardt. Mr. Leonhardt put together a piece entitled – Undoing inequality – about Biden’s economic policies referred to as Bidenomics.
Leonhardt begins by sharing some of the most senseless statements in the history of The Times:
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both ran for president promising to reinvigorate the economy for ordinary Americans. And both enacted laws that helped millions of people. Clinton expanded children’s health care and tax credits for low-income families. Obama accomplished even more, making it possible for almost anybody to afford health insurance.
The first sentence is true, both Clinton and Obama promised to reinvigorate the economy for ordinary Americans. But this never happened and it any economic increases were not due to their actions.
The Times reporter believes that both Obama and Clinton laws helped millions of people, but this has nothing to do with the economy. The program from Clinton “expanded children’s health care and tax credits for low-income families”. How did this help the economy? And, Obama made it possible for almost anyone to afford health insurance. What garbage.
Obamacare promised the moon but ended up being a filthy old and dry moon pie. Many people lost their insurance. Insurance costs today have skyrocketed and the coverage is minimal. This didn’t help Americans and it didn’t help the economy. Taking money from American producers and giving it to non-producers never helps an economy. It only steals money from hard-working people.
The Times goes on to say this about Bidenomics:
In response, a growing number of policy experts aligned with the Democratic Party have decided in recent years that their party’s approach to economic policy was flawed. They concluded that Democrats had not gone far enough to undo the revolution that Ronald Reagan started in the 1980s — a revolution that sparked the huge rise in inequality.
These Democratic experts have grown skeptical of the benefits of free trade and Washington’s hands-off approach to corporate consolidation. They want the government to spend more money on highways, technological development and other policies that could create good-paying jobs. The experts, in short, believe that they had been too accepting of the more laissez-faire economic agenda often known as neoliberalism.
This turnabout is the central explanation for President Biden’s economic agenda, which White House aides call Bidenomics and will be core to his re-election campaign. He has signed laws (sometimes with bipartisan support) spending billions of dollars on semiconductor factories, roads, bridges and clean energy. He has tried to crack down on monopolies. He has encouraged workers to join unions.
The Times doesn’t mention that it’s owned by a Mexican billionaire, the kind of person they complain about. They go on to praise Bidenomics for the government spending billions “on semiconductor factories, roads, bridges, and clean energy.” Does the Times know that these outputs by the government are somehow economically beneficial? Where exactly have rods and bridges been built? How does clean energy that costs more than coal or oil help the economy? What nonsense.
Also, The Times believes that encouraging workers to join unions helps the economy. Maybe creating policies that keep jobs in the US similar to what President Trump did would help the economy, but joining unions doesn’t increase the economy, especially since most union paying members are now in the government.
The Times again shows how utterly ignorant liberals are of the economy and numbers. Way to go.